Let’s review the bidding. Grassley keeps setting deadlines and setting conditions. Ford’s lawyer ignores the deadlines, calls Grassley a bully, and makes absurd demands that make no sense (like demanding that Kavanaugh testify first, which gives him no chance to respond to Ford’s allegations). As Dana noted yesterday, Grassley demanded a response by last night, which was deemed more bullying and ignored. Now, today, we have the media falsely reporting that Ford has “accepted” the invitation without actually coming to a meeting of the minds on the critical details, like when and how this will occur.

Ford is trying to show she is in charge. But she isn’t. In the end, the Senate is in charge. I don’t oppose their showing flexibility as long as they are willing to be firm in the end. Doing it this way allows them to say: look, we tried. They kept ignoring our deadlines, over and over, and finally we had no choice but to set a hearing.

The media will act like they are rejecting her “acceptance” but the media often lies and distorts to the detriment of conservatives. In the end, Grassley will have to stand up and be a man, and take action that will be portrayed as jamming this nomination down Democrats’ throats.

The concern that a “cloud” will hang over Kavanaugh’s head as a result is overstated. A “cloud” has arguably hung over Clarence Thomas’s head his whole career. So what? He’s been a great justice — the best justice sitting on the Court right now — and he’s given us a lot of great votes and opinions. Kavanaugh will be great too. Stop worrying about a “cloud” and let’s get this done.

This is all Kabuki theater. This has all been gamed out from the beginning based on the mistakes made with Anita Hill. Best to have no hearing, just the trial in the media, along with the media’s judgement on the GOP’s “unwillingness” to even listen to the allegations.

CNN even has a “feminist” (read: advocate of special rights for weak women) who says:

That means ensuring that Ford’s allegations are investigated by experts who have experience in handling the trauma of sexual assault and violence. That also means ensuring that, unlike Hill, we don’t insist on putting Ford on trial for being a survivor of sexual assault. And that means ensuring that critics who obfuscate and dismiss Ford’s charges as outdated antics of his youth do not prevail.

So, they are already setting up for not having a hearing, since the GOP-run committee is just a bunch of rapers anyway.

And suppose- just suppose, Dr. Ford’s accusations turn out to have some credibility; the question remains: ‘why would anybody make this up’ and put their life, the lives of their family and associates and their reputations through this.

It’s worth noting again that the ridicule of Dr. Ford’s accusations mirrors almost word-for-word what was said by many associates of my friend and colleague some years ago who had their accusations and credibility on a serious life-death issue publicly challenged. My friend was accused of being ‘mentally unstable,’ and of ‘grandstanding’ to enhance career opportunities. Patterico is aware of this individual. Which is why I asked my friend then the question then that fits here today: ‘why would anyone make this up?’

In the end, the accusations were found to be true.

Why would Dr. Ford turn her life upside down by making this up and put herself, her reputation and her family through this hell? Knowing someone who has actually lived through a real life ‘Hitchcock scenario’ and the aftermath for years after changes your perspective some. That said, personally, believe Ford is credible. And believe Kavanaugh and those associated with him from those rowdy high school times will ‘deny, deny, deny’ or feign the standard, ‘I don’t recall’ for obvious reasons and want to distance themselves. It doesn’t do their lives and careers any good being drawn into the spotlight over this. This isn’t a criminal proceeding but a job interview for a lifetime appointment. But if Kavanaugh was up for a lifetime job as your daughter’s gym teachers, you’d likely want this lurker run to ground. And the FS has list of 20 or 30 qualified conservatives at the ready. So unless the Senate flips, which is hard to see, a conservative is going to get the SCOTUS slot no matter what. It’s up to McConnell [who advised the WH this candidate would be difficult] to corral enough votes, anyway.

But strip out any angst and personal politics or media biases you may harbor and just make a list of how many corporate or government office holders -high profile or low- have managed to survive and keep or secure their gigs over the past two or three years in this ‘MeToo’ era battling this kind of accusation. The latest big name, Les Moonves, had Lynda Carter, a close friend of his who knew him for nearly 40 years, publicly vouched for his character, but clearly didn’t know him well enough and he still went down in flames.

Make the list of names; you’ll likely find it is a very, very short one– but one near the top has to be Donald Trump.

The concern that a “cloud” will hang over Kavanaugh’s head as a result is overstated. A “cloud” has arguably hung over Clarence Thomas’s head his whole career. So what? He’s been a great justice — the best justice sitting on the Court right now — and he’s given us a lot of great votes and opinions. Kavanaugh will be great too. Stop worrying about a “cloud” and let’s get this done.

I pointed this out in the other thread, but it bears repeating since I don’t think the “cloud” is what Grassley, et al, should be concerned with.

Loss of one senate seat (and four states were decided by less than 1% in 2016 ) could prevent dozens of conservative nominees, or even another Supreme, from being confirmed in the next two years.

You may say, well, the LeftMedia will pillory the Republicans whatever happens, and of course that’s true, but I do not believe we are at the point where the vote every person in the country is already pre-ordained. What happens in the next six weeks will have consequences for the election results, and it is perilous to believe otherwise.

Kavanaugh’s ultimate confirmation should obviously be non-negotiable. One can make the case that every day that passes gives Trump another day to screw things up by shooting his mouth off, and that’s true. But otherwise, if Kavanaugh has enough votes for confirmation, he has enough whether they are counted this Monday or next Monday.

Making every concession that doesn’t materially worsen Kavanaugh’s chances (in the interest of avoiding a 51-49 Democratic Senate, decided by 0.2% of the vote in Montana or wherever) just seems like common sense.

@13. Kevin, Dr. Ford and her family don’t appear to be missing any meals. There is a difference between being ‘famous’ and ‘infamous,’ too. There are easier paths, far from the spotlight, to wealth and security in America.

Off topic, but newspapers and magazines are being bought up left and right. Just never by conservatives as that causes an industry-wide hissy fit. But if a “progressive” (read: neo-Communist) buys them, it’s all good.

It’s true that we are seeing a lot of coastal elites get caught up in sex scandals, but do you think it is possible not all the men in this country act that way? Is it possible that some men have character?

you have to ask for consent every step so if you wanna do a hug you gotta say is it ok if we do hugs now and then if you wanna make a kiss on her you have to say ok that was a great hug but now i wanna do a kiss on you is that ok?

and then after that it gets all HBO after dark and some of it’s awkward but you still gotta ask about everything

@24. Kevin, I’ve often noted on other threads my political position and the trade off in so far as the court goes, so whichever conservative gets the SCOTUS slot it is of zero consequence to me. The politics of it mean little and there are 20 or 30 other qualified names on the FS list as well. Penn State would have saved face and millions of dollars and the Catholic Church avoided its current problems if both institutions had simply been willing to go the extra mile and run these sort of issues to ground.

@DCSCA:why would anybody make this up’ and put their life, the lives of their family and associates and their reputations through this.

People make decisions that damage “their life, the lives of their family and associates and their reputations” all the time and there are many reasons for it as there are humans who do it.

Examples are too numerous to list.

I made your exact argument about Bill Clinton in the Lewinski hearings. Why would a man with everything to lose risk it all for that? Why would such a clever lawyer makes such a stupid lie? I learned. Smart people do dumb things sometimes.

Ford may be powerfully motivated by the conviction her story is true and not be “making it up” in that sense. There are dozens of adults who believe to this day they were abducted and abused by day care workers and saw children murdered–none of these things happened, yet they are not liars and in fact a few of those they accused are still imprisoned.

@32. Well, DRJ, as noted on another thread, in college in the 1970’s- between 18 and 21 years of age, w/a 24 hour beer tap, a frat bro roommate now a University of Pittsburgh professor who was then the campus drug dealer [yet I never smoked/ate or used the stuff- amazing] and another who drank, passed out in public, sold nickle bags and did has, who became a judge and family man in New Jersey, I cop to having virtually no character in those years at all. And it didn’t help that films like ‘Animal House’ glorified the behavior. I am a little surprised the behavior attributed to both F and K went on earlier in HS, but then, they were prep schools which operate a little more protectively. This is going to come down to where you want to draw the line in 2018- remember, Doug Ginsberg had to withdraw in 1987 from the SCOTUS nod for smoking grass in law school. Can’t see that being an issue at all in 2018. Times change. K could probably get hired as an airline pilot, a corporate attorney– even run for elected office and win, but for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS over this issue in the ‘MeeToo’ times, maybe- or maybe be not. The times are changing almost as fast as this story.

Now we know the 5th person there was a girl. Maybe Ford didn’t want to go public about this story when she was young. But while you are considering how this sounds truthful based on your friend’s experience, ask her if she would have left a girl alone with 3 boys (1 or 2 of whom were dangerous), without warning her or getting her help.

Yes they are. The vaguer the accusation, the heavier the burden of proof on the accused. And if there’s no criminal penalty involved, the burden on the accused is heavier yet. After all, no one had a right to an athletic scholarship, or a seat on a court.

So if Ford has no facts to add beyond what was alleged, well hopefully Kavanaugh has his daily planner for 1981 – 1983 and witnesses who can prove where he was at every minute. Survivors of sexual assault can’t be expected to provide any details, or change them–maybe she’ll remember it wasn’t a party, or it wasn’t in the evening, or it wasn’t in the summer of 1981 – 1983.

@48. DRJ, example: in ‘ride season’ a frat bro got so drunk and high, he was barely conscious– the pledges put him in a second-hand suit, drove him to the airport in Erie, bought him a ticket to LaGuardia and told the stews he’d just left his bachelor party and was getting married in New Jersey the next day. They poured him on the plane [security was nothing like it is today] it departed on schedule and he landed w/a headache and a hangover in NYC. But the pledges were kind- he was from NJ so he was able to get his brother to pick him up and get him back to the college in a day or two.

That was clearly an irresponsible, immature and stupid thing to do to somebody- but it seems grrrrrreat at the time. 😉

@DCSCA:That was clearly an irresponsible, immature and stupid thing to do to somebody- but it seems grrrrrreat at the time.

I don’t understand why anyone would put their lives, their family’s lives, their associates lives, their reputations at risk…

And of course other white frat boys have assualted women at parties so yeah, assume Kavanaugh did it, he was white and a frat boy and went to parties. Unless he has that three years of day planner and corroborating witnesses. Unless they’re also white frat boys. They all just lie each other up like Duke Lacrosse did to Crystal Mangum.

Rep. Joe Kennedy III
@RepJoeKennedy
2 out of 3 sexual assaults are never reported. Might have something to do with the fact that for every 1,000 rapes, 994 perpetrators walk free. And the fact that men in power make statements like this one.
__ _

Nathan the Wurtzelhearted
@NathanWurtzel
What are the statistics outside of your family?

One of the reasons 538’s model gave Trump a better chance than others was that they correctly included the possibility of a correlated systematic error in polling, where others tended to treat the states as being statistically independent.

And they include a similar correlation of uncertainties in their Senate forecast.

In any case, we don’t need to believe any fancy model to understand that the GOP is far from having a lock on control of the Senate.

@56. Very few people- particularly work associates- believed my friend noted in #18 at the time, either, DRJ. Turned out for reasons known only to them at the time. And in the end, the accusations proved credible. So having known somebody who has been through a similar ‘Hitchcock scenario’ I’m less likely to be so immediately dismissive- hence, my ‘why would anybody make this up’ question. But that’s me.

@32. Been in the media biz 35 years, DRJ, and know a bit about how it operates- and I do find it a little disturbing to see the candidate being ‘marketed’ on the TeeVee like a box of Ivory Soap flakes by the Judicial Watch Network and such. Run their funding to ground if you can. Guess those are the times we live in. But as w/most advertising, it can make a product appear better than it is. [My favorite was when the product manager told the agency to put marbles in the Campbell’s Alphabet Soup for photo shoots so the letters ‘floated’ on top.] Sometimes selling the sizzle and not the steak can be tricky. But then, then there’s Trump Steaks.

@62. My point is my friend was repeatedly told her accusations weren’t ‘credible’ and was accused of being ‘mentally unstable’ and ‘grandstanding’ for career advancement and wasn’t to be believed. It was a ‘Hitchcock scenario.’

DCSCA, this has been asked and answered several times but you’ve made almost the exact same post multiple times across several threads now.

Outside of the thread, King (her schoolmate who confirmed and then unconfirmed the story) provided a very good literal answer to your question. Do you agree that KIng provides at least one answer to your question or is there some way to distinguish it?

This statement against interest sort of argument has merit. But it doesn’t establish credibility.

@67. Not really. Answers serving political spin service the spin. But strip all that out, consider the consequences in this day and age, and the basic question remains. It’s the same question asked about Nixon during Watergate- ‘why would they do it;’ they were far ahead of McGovern and the rest and winning across the board. Very few believed the story in the beginning- but in the end, it was true. I’m just not so instantly dismissive of her credibility nor willing to slur her character, having known someone who endured similar circumstances – at least until she testifies. But that’s me.

I said earlier that I’m reserving judgment, and I still am. As for Ms. Ford’s credibility, to me it depends on whether she shows up before the Judiciary Committee and, if she makes it, what she actually says. If she bails, and I don’t care what excuse she or her lawyer uses, then I’ll judge her credibility accordingly.

@46. Dave, revisit what happened to Doug Ginsburg, Reagan’s SCOTUS nom in 1987. He had to withdraw his name from nomination because he had smoked some reefer in law school. ‘Because he thought he could get away with it’ back then? Maybe today, in 2018– can’t see someone getting yanked for that today. For better or worse, it’s the ‘meetoo’ era– times change.

@58. My focus is on not instantly dismissing a person’s credibility not any aledged criminality. This is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. She could have just as easily accused him of being a closet drunkard or a Russian agent and you’d want it run to ground.

The job interview part of this process was with Trump. The Senate’s job is to advise and consent to the President’s nominations. Senators don’t get to pick who is nominated so it is not really a job interview. The only choices are to approve or to veto his choices.

@82. Sure it is- it’s part of the ‘job interviewing’ process the Senate committee assumes. Trump could just as easily have interviewed Ronald McDonald, liked the cut of his jib and the price of his Quarter Pounder w/Cheese and nominated him. And the Senate would chew on that whopper and ‘advise and consent’ accordingly.

But he didn’t. Instead he picked a nominee who was so well qualified that it took UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSH1T to have a shot at defeating him. BORK they at least fought on the basis of ideas. This is an uber-Borking.

“The study finds that the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. grew steadily throughout the 1990s and reached a peak in 2007/2008. The number of unauthorized migrants has since leveled off and become stable. “

I agree with the comments that do not demand immediate gratification. Grassley and the other Republicans who support Kavanaugh should stay within their expertise: Wheeling and dealing and bringing the caucus into line. Everything they do should be geared to sending Kavanaugh to the floor with 51 votes. (Did you know that Spence can be the 51st? Yes, yes, he can. Yay!) Whenever it happens. That will be the best way of all possible ways to tell Professor Doctor Christine Margaret Blasey Ford, Ph.D. to go pound sand.

She could have just as easily accused him of being a closet drunkard or a Russian agent and you’d want it run to ground.

Maybe. But I would then expect the next step to be the person providing some evidence to support the claim. If the “evidence” was some version of “I was an eye witness but I don’t remember where or when it was or how either of us came to be in the same place” I would want to ask more questions before I started any running. If as I asked more questions the situation didn’t improve or there might be some evidence of bias my desire to run that particular “it” to ground would decline.

I would love for her to testify, I think the committee should try to make that happen, and I think she has an obligation to cooperate. I don’t think she will. I’m not sure why they haven’t done something simple like send out the FBI to get her statement. We’ve seen that lying to the FBI is sometimes a big deal and she feels strongly about getting them involved.

Advise And Consent, the movie. From 1962 and totally topical today. From a book by Allen Drury, directed by Otto Preminger, with Henry Fonda, Charles Laughton, and Gene Tierney among others, you can’t go wrong.

Way to completely miss a point. See also 83. But you are in such utter denial about the flagrant dishonesty of what your party (the Democrats) is doing that you trot out all kinds on non-sequiturs in defense.

“SO NOW THE LAST NAMED WITNESS HAS CONTRADICTED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD:

As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..
“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

“I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was “flabbergasted” when he learned of them.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” he said after Ford came forward. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

In addition, two others have issued statements.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement. “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

“SO NOW THE LAST NAMED WITNESS HAS CONTRADICTED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD:

As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

“I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was “flabbergasted” when he learned of them.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” he said after Ford came forward. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

In addition, two others have issued statements.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement. “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

I eagerly await DCSCA’s dissimulation of extreme hypotheticals where the story could be true. He’s already compared Kavanaugh to Les Moonves, and since he likes talking about #metoo so much, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Bob Menendez, Garrison Keillor, Bill Clinton, Louis CK and Al Franken by extension.

Sorry, but #MeToo was specifically about going after high-profile liberal men who buy indulgences for near and current bad behavior via constantly mouthing Democrat party platitudes. It’s not described as such. But its targets all fit the profile!

It isn’t about opportunistic character assassination of men with records of actual public service and accomplishment. They have no friends in media who assassinate (literally or figuratively) their targets for them with the twisted language of political correctness and the rabid hatred of partisans betrayed.

Abandon your stretch goals, #metoo is not a movement whose energy you can easily coopt and pushing it hard is going to rouse Republican and independent voters against the Democrats with the unmistakeable stench of Hillary and Anita Hill (which may in fact be the plan, in which case I want America to see as much of Christine Ford as possible before Kavanaugh is confirmed prior to the new SC session.)

Then I want loud denunciations of her lies and deceit in every single campaign ad until the election, to make a firm example of her for anyone tempted to ‘just give their story’ to high-ranking Democrat operatives.

@125. Inaccurate. REvist my comment, #18. As noted, there are likely less high profiled individuals you could ferret out as well. But go ahead and make a list; you’ll likely find it is a very, very short one– but a name on it near the top has to be Donald Trump.

@127. See # 18.

@129. Meh. Perhaps it and Mike Judge may have shared a cab in their youthful escapades.

“Simply put,” Walsh [Ms. Keyser’s attorney] said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Professor Blasey, does it surprise you that Ms. Keyser has stated that she was not at the party where you claim Judge Kavanaugh assaulted you?

CBF:

No. First off, she did not say she wasn’t there, but rather that she didn’t recollect being at any party that Brett Kavanaugh also attended. In fact I probably would have been surprised if she had remembered what to her was no doubt an unremarkable random party over 30 years ago. I can assure you that normally I wouldn’t have remembered that party at all, myself. Probably not 5 or even 2 years later, and certainly not 30 years later, except for the fact that Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape me at that party, but he was, thank God, too drunk to do so.

Likewise, after all these years, I have no recollection whether Ms. Keyser was acquainted with Brett Kavanaugh at that time, apart from their both being present at that party. I suppose I very well might have known that, at that time, for Ms. Keyser and I were friends. That she says she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh” now, surprises me not in the least, and I certainly do not take her statement to assert that she denies ever having met or socialized with him at all, back in our high school days. Both from my personal experience, and my studies in psychology, I believe it would strain credulity to believe that such a statement — 30 plus years on — would or could be truly honestly made, except in rather unusual circumstances. For example, where the denier has a truly remarkable memory — at least for the sort of thing under discussion. And, for example, where the “party denied” was famous at the time, and denier was cognizant of that fame, at the time. (E.g., one’s assertion that one had never met Martin Luther King.)

It’s like when Atali the daughter of Ymir the Frost Giant tried to lure Conan into a trap so her brothers could kill him and “lay his smoking heart on [their] father’s table” but Conan killed them instead and then chased down Atali and was about to take against her will what she had lured him with but she cried out to Ymir her father and he spirited her away and all Conan was left with was her gossamer veil and Atali now has a #MeToo story that she tells to all the Valkyries at meetings of the Asgardian Organization For Women Who Wear Chain Mail Or Nothing and I probably should not be making jokes about this because everybody knows that toxic masculinity is a disease which infects American society and no woman is ever safe when men are around.

It’s bad enough that people are saying that Ford’s inability to remember details is evidence of the truth of her story–now Q is saying that Ford’s witnesses inability to remember details is evidence of the truth of her story.

As I said above, the new standard is that the vaguer the accusation, the heavier the burden of proof on the accused. We are not going to like the new rules.

@102. Meh, nk, so you’re expecting President Pence to name his own nominee?

Spoiler alert: in that flick, Lefffingwell, the SoS nominee selected by the president, lied under oath to the committee about attending commie meetings; the committee chairman was pressured and blackmailed w/evidence of some past transgression that had a whiff of truth to it by some fringe party wackos and cut his throat, the vote came in deadlocked as the president dropped dead and the new president decided not to break the tie and to name his own nominee.

@ 152 DRJ .. I’d still like to know why Blasey left another girl in a house with a boy who she says attacked her. If it was her good friend Leland at the party, leaving her there is even stranger.

Assuming there’s a hearing and the professor testifies, you can reasonably rest assured that the question will be asked. The professor may well even have an answer aside from “I dunno”, and that answer may reflect badly on the 15 year old, or perhaps not so badly at all. Stay tuned.

If Kavanaugh had named a witness who he said was with him and Judge and they were in, say Gstaad instead of Georgetown on the night of the party (assuming we even knew within a year what night that was), and that witness were to say “I have never met Judge and have no recollection of ever have been in any place where he was present, with or without Kavanaugh, Gstaad or anywhere else”–I have a hard time believing that Q! would say that witness is not contradicting Kavanaugh’s story.

I’m not much of a partisan. I challenge you to presume Kavanaugh’s innocence. After all, eyewitness testimony of traumatic events is extremely dangerous to rely upon, and decades old memories are going to be tainted by our own mental processes. Imagine this man really were innocent and how easily a mistake could be made. Put all the nonsense about negotiating from the partisan handlers aside. If you were investigating this yourself, can you imagine the victim telling the truth, yet the suspect being innocent? I can. We don’t know if there’s going to be some evidence that corroborates her story, but that is also a problem. If that evidence exists, it’s being kept secret as an ambush, so that it’s more difficult to defend against it. That’s not how we should handle an open and honest inquiry of something that happened a long time ago. So either there isn’t sufficient evidence, or it’s being handled unfairly.

I think it’s already obvious that this investigation should have been a more private one, and that making this public was very unfair to everyone involved, and the people who exposed Ford’s name to the public should be investigated themselves.

Imagine this man really were innocent and how easily a mistake could be made.

I can indeed imagine he is wholly innocent of the claimed assault, and that deciding yea or nay on the claim of assault is a fraught question.

If you were investigating this yourself, can you imagine the victim telling the truth, yet the suspect being innocent? I can.

I believe in “objective truth” (for lack of a better term), so I cannot imagine that if the professor is telling the truth, the judge can then be innocent of the truth which the professor has given voice to.

I also believe that folks may believe things (even things about themselves and their own life experiences) which simply are not objectively true. Ordinarily in such circumstances, I would not say that such people are “lying” if they assert their mistaken beliefs to be true – but that frankly depends to a certain degree (I wager, and I speak in regards to how I judge or categorize behavior) on my perception and judgment that they are being reasonably (intellectually / emotionally) honest.

So either there isn’t sufficient evidence, or it’s being handled unfairly.

As to your assertion that so there isn’t sufficient evidence, I am uncomprehending (sorry) as to what the “so” refers to. What in that which you wrote earlier purports to establish a lack of “sufficient evidence”? Myself, I have no doubts that there are many women who have in fact been sexually assaulted and who “sucked it up” as best they could, and didn’t ever share the experience or didn’t share it for decades. In a court case, one could expect experts to testify on either side, in an appropriate case in this regard. Of course, the majority here wants no such airing of fact &/or opinion (though presumably Ford’s attorneys would like to present such witnesses). In this general vein, the majority apparently won’t even consent to the subpoena-ing of Mark Judge – the examination of whom I wager would be quite revealing. Personally, I find the majority’s denial in this regard (Mark Ford) to be a craven, unfair and wholly bad faith decision. Wholly. Speaking of the unfair handling of evidence.

In this regard, from what I know of “the evidence” available, I find the professor’s account to be credible, and nothing that I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a bit) really raises any appreciable doubt as to her account. Perhaps I’ll react differently when I see her testify (assuming this goes to hearing), or perhaps the judge’s testimony will somehow overwhelm that of the professor, in my judgment.

… the people who exposed Ford’s name to the public should be investigated themselves.

I agree. And in fact I think that it would be wholly proper to investigate this, so far as possible, by questions put to the professor. I’d like to have as complete an understanding of how we got to where we are (as far as leaks, etc.), and her testimony may be revealing on that point – or may not be much revealing. If it is revealing, that may be relevant to her credibility, on top of the “process questions”. If I were King (Emperor?), I’d probably have a hearing and cross-examine Feinstein herself and her staff and maybe some others (not predicting or prejudging the result, of course), but I suspect that’ll never happen, eh? Anyway, that’s a hypothetical (and impossible) task for another day.

163 whoops . . . in this regard (Mark Ford) to be a craven . . .should read . . . in this regard (Mark Judge) to be a craven . . .

164 .. mg Not even a sentence, much less an argument, much less a developed argument, much, much less a remotely responsible argument, much, much, much less a good argument. But thanks for dropping by, and adding your 2 cents! (Worth every penny!)

And I suspect that’s the secret agenda behind the hate towards Kavanaugh, and against Anthony for retiring with a Republican president in office. That now the Supreme Court will not proceed to the next step of making pedophilia a Constitutional right. Not Roe v. Wade like they claim — Kennedy was not especially pro-abortion.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to Leland Ingham Keyser, a friend of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford claims Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed when he was drunk, covered her mouth, and tried to remove her clothing at a party in the early 1980s when they were in high school.

Keyser’s lawyer, Howard Walsh, responded to the committee late Saturday in a written statement.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” the attorney wrote.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel
10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: “Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware……

…..11) Wow. “Before her name became public, Ford told…” That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford’s response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.

I believe in “objective truth” (for lack of a better term), so I cannot imagine that if the professor is telling the truth, the judge can then be innocent of the truth which the professor has given voice to.

Seems very easy to me. She could have mistaken the identity of the perpetrator of her assault. Then she would be telling the truth about her experience, and so would he in denying he did it.

This really happens and it’s unwise to ignore that possibility, particularly if there are other reasons to suspect memory issues (alcohol was involved, so much time has elapsed, and the lack of many details). Granted we haven’t even heard her speak directly about it, but I worry that she will be too well coached for her testimony to be that helpful.

In this regard, from what I know of “the evidence” available, I find the professor’s account to be credible

Well, she has destroyed her life and inspired the hatred of probably more than a million people so I’ll give her that much. But to be clear, I don’t think doubting the accuracy of her identification or description of the event is necessarily an attack on her character. Sure, for many, either Kavanaugh is a serial gang rapist, or these accusers are all die hard democrat operatives hell bent on ruining innocent people with false rape accusations. Reality tends to be less black and white.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.